## Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

devans99
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2018 1:21 pm

### Re: Start with what you know, don't make shit up along the way.

Logik wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:54 am
We are trapped in a causal mindset. We expect every cause to have an effect, and every effect to have a cause. Because we are creatures of habit we rely on this inductive principle to conclude that the universe (an effect) must have a cause. And we gave that cause a name.

But why stop there with inductive reasoning? What caused the cause? To infinite regress.
We can get out of the infinite regress problem if we postulate circular time. That way the Big Bang is caused by the Big Crunch. Which makes a lot of sense because there is nowhere else in space-time to get enough matter/energy for the Big Bang apart from the Big Crunch.

There is another way of thinking about it: each moment must have a moment before it to be defined. The only topology that fits this requirement is a closed loop or circle.

attofishpi
Posts: 4051
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

### Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Or chaos...a place of no logic...and no infinite regress.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Start with what you know, don't make shit up along the way.

devans99 wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:09 pm
We can get out of the infinite regress problem if we postulate circular time. That way the Big Bang is caused by the Big Crunch. Which makes a lot of sense because there is nowhere else in space-time to get enough matter/energy for the Big Bang apart from the Big Crunch.

There is another way of thinking about it: each moment must have a moment before it to be defined. The only topology that fits this requirement is a closed loop or circle.
It's not really a solution. The reason why infinite regress is a problem is the "infinite" part not the "regress" part.

Now you've introduced infinite time.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

attofishpi wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Or chaos...a place of no logic...and no infinite regress.
In which case all of our science would be coincidental not incidental.

So - abandon reason and grab a cocktail

devans99
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2018 1:21 pm

### Re: Start with what you know, don't make shit up along the way.

Logik wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 2:54 pm
devans99 wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:09 pm
We can get out of the infinite regress problem if we postulate circular time. That way the Big Bang is caused by the Big Crunch. Which makes a lot of sense because there is nowhere else in space-time to get enough matter/energy for the Big Bang apart from the Big Crunch.

There is another way of thinking about it: each moment must have a moment before it to be defined. The only topology that fits this requirement is a closed loop or circle.
It's not really a solution. The reason why infinite regress is a problem is the "infinite" part not the "regress" part.

Now you've introduced infinite time.
You are misreading me I think; I have not introduced infinite time; time is finite, circular and eternal (in the 4d space-time sense of eternal - opposite of presentism). This is a valid solution the infinite regress.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Start with what you know, don't make shit up along the way.

devans99 wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 3:08 pm
I have not introduced infinite time; time is finite, circular and eternal (in the 4d space-time sense of eternal - opposite of presentism). This is a valid solution the infinite regress.
I think "infinite" and "eternal" mean the exact same thing?
eternal. adjective. lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning.
"Finite and eternal" is an oxymoron.

devans99
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2018 1:21 pm

### Re: Start with what you know, don't make shit up along the way.

Logik wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 3:39 pm
devans99 wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 3:08 pm
I have not introduced infinite time; time is finite, circular and eternal (in the 4d space-time sense of eternal - opposite of presentism). This is a valid solution the infinite regress.
I think "infinite" and "eternal" mean the exact same thing?
eternal. adjective. lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning.
"Finite and eternal" is an oxymoron.
If you check the dictionary, there are two definitions of eternal:

- Eternal inside of time. This is presentism. It requires infinity
- Eternal outside of time. This is eternalism. It does not require infinity

For the 2nd, you have to think in terms of space-time. Imagine time just as a dimension like space then the universe forms a static, solid shape in 4D space time. No infinity required. No creation required. The universe is completely static, finite; it just is.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Start with what you know, don't make shit up along the way.

devans99 wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 3:49 pm
For the 2nd, you have to think in terms of space-time. Imagine time just as a dimension like space then the universe forms a static, solid shape in 4D space time. No infinity required. No creation required. The universe is completely static, finite; it just is.
Right, so it's an entity without a cause. The number of dimensions is immaterial. String theory is up to 11.

This is the pantheistic belief. This would be the same as a chaos conception.

devans99
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2018 1:21 pm

### Re: Start with what you know, don't make shit up along the way.

Logik wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 3:58 pm
devans99 wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 3:49 pm
For the 2nd, you have to think in terms of space-time. Imagine time just as a dimension like space then the universe forms a static, solid shape in 4D space time. No infinity required. No creation required. The universe is completely static, finite; it just is.
Right, so it's an entity without a cause. The number of dimensions is immaterial. String theory is up to 11.

This is the pantheistic belief. This would be the same as a chaos conception.
Possibly but not necessary pantheistic. It's my favourite model but it does have problems: the universe appears fine tuned and with eternalism there is not a place for a fine tuner. Also the old question of why is there something rather than nothing?

All models of the universe seem to have problems though.

Ginkgo
Posts: 2581
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

### Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Wed Dec 12, 2018 8:46 pm
attofishpi wrote:
Wed Dec 12, 2018 6:52 pm
I think this is a more forward thinking, practical manifestation perhaps knocking Occam's Razor off the top shelf, so to speak. In its effect, it comprehends what we know, and from that permits more metaphysical consideration of the possibilities rather that just stating, hey that's an assumption, so disregard it.
Well said, Atto! And thank you! Having verified the existence of at least two clear-thinking minds on this forum, I can proceed to put Russell's criterion to work, by hypothesizing the pre-existence of three spaces, each with only three absolutely simple properties; from which I can develop an alternative to current beliefs about the beginnings that includes human consciousness and explains dark energy.
New thread, of course, as time permits.

Greylorn
Please outline how beon theory explains dark energy and consciousness. Perhaps a new thread?

attofishpi
Posts: 4051
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

### Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Ginkgo wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 3:58 am
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Wed Dec 12, 2018 8:46 pm
attofishpi wrote:
Wed Dec 12, 2018 6:52 pm
I think this is a more forward thinking, practical manifestation perhaps knocking Occam's Razor off the top shelf, so to speak. In its effect, it comprehends what we know, and from that permits more metaphysical consideration of the possibilities rather that just stating, hey that's an assumption, so disregard it.
Well said, Atto! And thank you! Having verified the existence of at least two clear-thinking minds on this forum, I can proceed to put Russell's criterion to work, by hypothesizing the pre-existence of three spaces, each with only three absolutely simple properties; from which I can develop an alternative to current beliefs about the beginnings that includes human consciousness and explains dark energy.
New thread, of course, as time permits.

Greylorn
Please outline how beon theory explains dark energy and consciousness. Perhaps a new thread?
I'm not familiar with beon theory, although I know what it is when a sage from the aether states 'you are on'.

I've said this before on the forum, and i'll say it again.

In a similar way that electricity flows through an electronic circuit, with all the components on said circuit doing their thing, I think consciousness is the 'in between' of cathode\anode however, it is between our reality - 'light' energy for want of a better terminology and 'dark energy'.
Just a thought really. But knowing there is a 3rd party intelligence that is part of our very consciousness does not hinder such a consideration.

I scratch the back of my hand, I feel it, I look at the glare from my monitor - i see it...but ultimately where does such 'information' go, ...once it has been sensed by our consciousness?

Thus, and fluff to Occam...I think consciousness is apparent because of differential between our reality and dark energy.

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

### Re: Start with what you know, don't make shit up along the way.

Logik wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:54 am
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 2:39 am
But be forewarned. I believe in a Creator, but this is not the God of any established religion.
You will find that a logician's disagreement with deities isn't on the grounds of religious opposition, but merely one of consistency.

We are trapped in a causal mindset. We expect every cause to have an effect, and every effect to have a cause. Because we are creatures of habit we rely on this inductive principle to conclude that the universe (an effect) must have a cause. And we gave that cause a name.

But why stop there with inductive reasoning? What caused the cause? To infinite regress.

It is by Occam's razor that I choose to have only one unexplained cause in my ontology rather than two (or more).

I call the unexplained cause The Universe.
Logik,
You jump into the most conventional belief system like a cheap slut on food stamps jumps into the bed of the first promising millionaire.

Your name is a misnomer. You are not logical, no more so than the farcial Spock character on old Star Trek episodes-- you're a con man, like him.

How logical is it to believe that a universe in which every action arises from the interaction of at least two opposing forces might have come into existence by the spontaneous uncaused action of a single entity? That's not logical. It's simply stupid-- but you, like most incompetent thinkers, accept it because millions of others do, and some of them call themselves professors.

Genuine logic operates independently of agreement systems, whereas you merely suck their teats. Your beliefs are dreadfully ordinary. Why present them on a forum open to non-conventional ideas?

Greylorn

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Start with what you know, don't make shit up along the way.

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 4:38 am
Logik,
You jump into the most conventional belief system like a cheap slut on food stamps jumps into the bed of the first promising millionaire.

Your name is a misnomer. You are not logical, no more so than the farcial Spock character on old Star Trek episodes-- you're a con man, like him.
To the casual reader. What is Greylorn attempting to do here?

Hypothesis 1: Greylorn is trying to expose Logik as a fraud.
Hypothesis 2: Greylorn is drawing the spotlight away from himself so as to avoid being exposed as a fraud.

Which one is true? What better way to start 2019 than to find out!

Also, since good science requires accurate predictions: I predict that Greylorn is not a scientist. He's a just a silly tools operator. He knows how to use logic/mathematics, but he has no clue how or why they work. He doesn't understand the limits of his own tools so he keeps tripping over circular reasoning.

I predict that I will find a flaw in Greylorn's belief-system (be it infinite regress, circular reasoning, hypocrisy or a contradiction). That is if he cares to allow for his beliefs to be scrutinised (which I doubt - given his grumpy old age).
How logical is it to believe that a universe in which every action arises from the interaction of at least two opposing forces might have come into existence by the spontaneous uncaused action of a single entity?
Because we aren't talking about what happens IN the universe. We are talking about where the universe (all of it!) came from.

It seems I am being accused of believing in uncaused causes. Lets get right down to ontological matters.

Can you explain to all of us mortals the two opposing forces from which photons arise?
Genuine logic operates independently of agreement systems, whereas you merely suck their teats.
Sadly, you are wrong. All logic systems emerge from rules: axioms, semantics and grammar.

So if you could be so kind as to openly state the axioms, semantics and grammar of the the logic which you call "genuine logic" - you will be doing us mere mortals a favour.
Your beliefs are dreadfully ordinary. Why present them on a forum open to non-conventional ideas?
You only believe that your beliefs are "extraordinary and unconventional”. They fall into the same old patterns logicians and mathematicians have been yawning about for centuries.
Old ideas dressed in new words.

You are no free thinker. You are a slave of your tools. You are no logician - you "suck at their teats". Nobody is wasting your time except your own dogma.

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

### Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

attofishpi wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 2:51 pm
Ginkgo wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 3:58 am
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Wed Dec 12, 2018 8:46 pm

Well said, Atto! And thank you! Having verified the existence of at least two clear-thinking minds on this forum, I can proceed to put Russell's criterion to work, by hypothesizing the pre-existence of three spaces, each with only three absolutely simple properties; from which I can develop an alternative to current beliefs about the beginnings that includes human consciousness and explains dark energy.
New thread, of course, as time permits.

Greylorn
Please outline how beon theory explains dark energy and consciousness. Perhaps a new thread?
I'm not familiar with beon theory, although I know what it is when a sage from the aether states 'you are on'.

I've said this before on the forum, and i'll say it again.

In a similar way that electricity flows through an electronic circuit, with all the components on said circuit doing their thing, I think consciousness is the 'in between' of cathode\anode however, it is between our reality - 'light' energy for want of a better terminology and 'dark energy'.
Just a thought really. But knowing there is a 3rd party intelligence that is part of our very consciousness does not hinder such a consideration.

I scratch the back of my hand, I feel it, I look at the glare from my monitor - i see it...but ultimately where does such 'information' go, ...once it has been sensed by our consciousness?

Thus, and fluff to Occam...I think consciousness is apparent because of differential between our reality and dark energy.
Atto,
You wrote, I think consciousness is apparent because of differential between our reality and dark energy.

WTF does that gibberish mean? You cannot identify the concept of "our reality" and you do not know any more about dark energy than you've learned from tv perfessers who at least have the integrity to admit that they do not know squat about D.E.

How can you say that something is "apparent" because of an undefined relationship between two unknowns, one of them a stupid philosophical abstraction? You come across as just another philosopher wanna-be, but you're not up to their higher standards of bullshit.

For a few moments, awhile ago, I saw you as someone with a clear thinking mind. Then you show up with nonsense that proves I'm an incompetent judge of such things. But perhaps you are like a few people I know who infuse their brain with ethanol, cannabis, oxy-c, or other chemicals that simulate Alzheimer's, but have a few lucid moments in between. If so, consider writing your forum posts only within those lucid moments.
-GL

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Seems all this old fart is good at is swinging his inferiority complex about.

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests